Migrants and the State: an exclusive national family?

Agnes Woolley examines the implications of the UK Government’s new rules
on family migration and argues that if families are the building blocks of a
secure and stable nation, then the right to family life must be upheld

Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

The All Party Parliamentary Group
on Migration in the UK is now in the final weeks of its inquiry into the impact of new
rules on family migration, which came into effect in July 2012. According
to its Chair, Kate
Green MP, the inquiry will ‘consider how far the changes could hamper
policies that promote family life in the UK, which is an essential element of
strong and integrated communities.’ While Green is right to highlight the
importance of family life to the maintenance of stable societies, what the inquiry
does not address is how far these new rules contribute to the increasingly
narrow and exclusive vision of the national family.

In brief, the government changes
to family migration rules include: a new income requirement of £18, 600 for
people wishing to sponsor the settlement of a family member or spouse, an
extended probationary period before that family member or spouse can apply for
settlement (an increase from two to five years) and a review of the application
of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to family
and private life) in immigration cases. Responding to these changes, the
Migrants’ Rights Network published a briefing
in June 2012, which points to the wide disparity in earnings between different
social groups. This means that women, people who live outside the south east of
England, Bangladeshi or Pakistani communities and young people, will all be less
likely to have access to family life by sponsoring the settlement of a spouse
or family member.

Missing from this list are those
asylum seekers who instead of refugee status, which comes with an automatic
right to family reunion, have been given Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the UK.
Unlike officially recognised refugees, those with ILR must meet the same
financial criteria as other settled or British citizens applying for family
migration; hardly likely when they have not been allowed to undertake employment
and have had only limited access to education (see People on
the Move for details about the injustices of the British
asylum-determination system and the Refugee Council’s current
campaign on asylum seekers’ rights to work). The majority of asylum seekers
granted ILR submitted their claims before 2007 and form part of the backlog of
‘legacy’ cases which has been so badly
managed by the UKBA. With some cases dating as far back as 2003,
these asylum seekers have often been living apart from loved ones for up to ten
years and have no automatic right to be reunited with them once their cases
have been resolved.

Seemingly part of its stealth
power grab from the EU, the Government is also attempting to reform the
application of Article 8 of the ECHR (incorporated into UK law in the Human
Rights Act of 1998) in immigration cases. In its desperation to drive down
immigration numbers, the Government’s new
rules stipulate that it is only in ‘exceptional circumstances’ that
recourse to Article 8 will be considered for those wishing to settle in the UK
and only if it outweighs ‘the public interest’. But given the consensus on the
importance of familial relationships, why exactly is it in the ‘public
interest’ to limit family life both for British-born citizens and newly-settled
migrants? Leaving aside the Daily Mail’s
panic over ‘foreign
criminals’, is it just a question of economics? Or do these new rules pose
wider questions about the changing nature of the national family?

Nations are often described
through the metaphor of the family. The US has its ‘Founding Fathers’, France’s
national motto includes ‘fraternité’
as a key tenet and a ‘motherland’ is often invoked among diasporic communities.
However, partly as a result of its bloody colonial history, modern Britain has
struggled to define itself in these terms. No longer comfortably occupying the
role of ‘mother country’ for ex-colonial subjects, and rapidly fragmenting as a
result of devolution, the UK invokes filial unity only in the context of the
increasingly anachronistic ‘Commonwealth family’. This anxiety over expressions
of collective nationality has long been reflected in the country’s
contradictory relationship to immigration and has led to reductive questions
about pubs, cricket and the parliamentary system in the ‘Life in the UK’ test,
which even the most ‘British’ of British citizens is likely to have trouble
with.

George Lakoff draws attention to
the conceptual importance of the family metaphor in his 1996 book Moral
Politics, where he argues that differing conceptions of the family
account for the variation in conservative and liberal worldviews. For
conservatives, the nation is conceptualised as a ‘Strict Father family’, while
liberals prefer the idea of a ‘Nurturant Parent’. It’s not hard to see to which
type of family Britain currently conforms in its restrictive approach to
migrants’ rights. Yet given the coalition’s
position that ‘strong and stable families of all kinds’ are ‘the
bedrock of a strong and stable society’, it seems contradictory
to introduce a set of measures designed to limit their formation and suggests
that it is a very specific type of family that the Government has in mind.

While it may not explicitly
conceive of itself through familial metaphors, like many countries, Britain
spends a great deal of time worrying about the nature of the modern family. It
is regularly the focus of debates over welfare and social policy, and the
evolving diversity of contemporary families in Britain is a touchstone for
politicians of both right and left. As a microcosm of the nation, then, the
changing composition of the family reflects what the APPG
on migration describe as: ‘wider shifts in UK society’ which demonstrate
‘higher international mobility among the UK population than in the past’ and
‘the increasing diversity of the British-born population.’ Resisting these
trends through restrictive family migration policies contradicts the
Government’s own stated
aims of improving the integration of Britain’s diverse communities.

This leaves us with coexistent
visions of the nation: the liberal, conceptual nation and the predominantly
illiberal institution of the nation-state. At its best, the UK can offer
protection to those fleeing from persecution and a supportive environment for
migrant family members through inclusion in the national family. This is borne
out time and again in British citizens’ welcoming responses to refugee and
immigrant members of their communities, which demonstrate that the pride many
Britons feel in their history of hospitality to immigration is not misplaced.
But if we’re to ensure that this history has a continuing relevance, it’s crucial
that we do not cleave to rigid and exclusionary conceptions of what constitutes
the national family. Though not without resistance, Britain has come to accept
and embrace new and diverse forms of family and kinship - lone parent families,
gay and lesbian couples, adopting and fostering families - can we not do the
same on a national scale? If families are the building blocks of a secure and
stable nation, then the right to family life must be upheld.

This article is published under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. If you have any
queries about republishing please
contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.